Mission Statements: =

A Thematic Analysis of =
Rhetoric Across=20
Institutional Type

They're Everywhere! They're =
Everywhere!

Mission statements are ubiquitous in higher =
education.=20
Accreditation agencies demand them, strategic planning is =
predicated on=20
their formulation, and virtually every college and university has =
one=20
available for review. Moreover, higher education institutions are=20
constantly revisiting and revising their mission statements: as =
recently=20
as the mid-1990s, the Association of American Colleges (1994), =
found that=20
fully 80% of all colleges and universities were making major =
revisions in=20
their mission statements, goals, curricula, and general education =
courses.=20
It would seem that not having a mission statement begs the very =
legitimacy=20
of a college or university. Of course, the crafting (and =
re-crafting) of=20
such documents consumes considerable institutional resources, =
particularly=20
that most precious resource: time. So, why bother? Some would =
argue that=20
articulating a shared purpose is a requisite first step on the =
road to=20
organizational success. Others are far less sanguine about such =
efforts=20
and view them as rhetorical pyrotechnics=E2=80=94pretty to look at =
perhaps, but of=20
little structural consequence. The purpose of this study is to =
begin an=20
exploration of these hypotheses by first attempting to understand =
what=20
institutions actually say in their missions and by exploring the=20
relationship between these rhetorical elements and institutional =
type.=20
[End Page 456]

Mission Statements: Half-Full or =
Half-Empty?

A furor over mission statements swept over =
corporate=20
America nearly three decades ago (Drucker, 1973; Peters and =
Waterman,=20
1982). As is the case with other management trends, such ideas =
inevitably=20
=E2=80=93 and belatedly =E2=80=93 found their way into the academy =
(Birnbaum, 2000).=20
Keller (1983), for example, in his seminal book on strategic =
planning,=20
argues that mission statements are a necessary part of an =
institution's=20
strategic planning process. Others point to the value of mission=20
statements in expressing a "vision" for the institution's future =
(Lenning=20
& Micek, 1976; Schwerin, 1980; Carruthers & Lott, 1981; =
Martin,=20
1985; Nanus, 1992). Much of the early research on the utility of =
mission=20
statements is limited because, as Davies (1986) notes, it fails to =
recognize "the unexamined presuppositions upon which they are =
grounded"=20
(p. 85). In short, the researchers take as gospel the notion that =
such=20
statements are, to quote Martha Stewart, "a good thing" and that =
their=20
assertions are clothed with threadbare anecdotal evidence.

More recent research on postsecondary mission statements has =
produced a=20
more nuanced understanding of the role that ideology and purpose =
play in=20
organizational life. This literature suggests that the process of=20
articulating an institution's mission has two potential benefits. =
First,=20
it is instructional. A clear mission helps organizational members=20
distinguish between activities that conform to institutional =
imperatives=20
and those that do not. Second, a shared sense of purpose has the =
capacity=20
to inspire and motivate those within an institution and to =
communicate its=20
characteristics, values, and history to key external constituents=20
(Drucker, 1973; Keller, 1983; Parekh, 1977; Smith, 1979; Hartley, =
2002).=20
Researchers have also described the experiences of (typically =
small)=20
institutions whose discussions about institutional priorities and =
future=20
direction, codified in mission statements, have guided decision =
making=20
around key issues such as program creation or termination. The =
mission=20
statement therefore is rightly understood as an artifact of a =
broader=20
institutional discussion about its purpose.

Of course, other practitioners and scholars see the mission =
statement=20
glass as half-empty. They view mission statements as a collection =
of stock=20
phrases that are either excessively vague or unrealistically =
aspirational=20
or both. From this perspective, mission statements ultimately fail =
to=20
follow through on or convey any noteworthy sense of an =
institution's=20
current identity (Davies, 1986; Chait, 1979; Delucchi, 1997). A =
majority=20
of those who have conducted what little empirical analysis exists =
of=20
college and university mission statements reside squarely in this =
camp.=20
They argue that mission statements, rather than providing focus to =
colleges and universities, offer precisely the opposite. Instead =
of=20
[End Page 457] direction and constraint, college and =
university=20
mission statements provide a means to an uncertain end. More =
specifically,=20
the language in mission statements is intended to evoke an =
all-purpose=20
purpose. Or, as Gordon Davies (1986) puts it, mission statements =
tend to=20
demonstrate "The importance of being general." In other words, =
rather than=20
surfacing values that might guide everyday decision making, =
colleges and=20
universities fashion mission statements that maximize =
institutional=20
flexibility. They communicate that nothing is beyond the reach of =
the=20
organization in question. In doing so, they ignore institutional=20
limitations and side-step any effort at prioritizing current =
activities or=20
future initiatives.

Even so, sociologists that use institutional theory to explain=20
organizational behavior (e.g., Meyer & Rowan, 1977; Meyer, =
Deal and=20
Scott, 1981) would argue that an "all-purpose" mission statement=20
nevertheless fulfills an important function for a college or =
university.=20
From this point of view, the utility and general nature of mission =
statements go hand in hand. Mission statements are =
normative=E2=80=94they exist=20
because they are expected to exist, much the same way that =
students expect=20
colleges and universities to award credit in the form of hours and =
persons=20
inside and outside higher education expect college campuses to =
include=20
"quads," well-landscaped gardens, and football stadiums. =
Institutional=20
theorists point to organizational artifacts like mission =
statements and=20
knowingly describe them as ritualistic or mythological. From this =
point of=20
view, mission statements are certainly important but not for the =
direction=20
they provide. Rather, they serve a legitimating function. Mission=20
statements are valuable because they =E2=80=93 and the elements =
within them =E2=80=93 show=20
that the organization in question understands the "rules of the =
game."=20
And, one of the rules of the higher education game is that you =
have to=20
have a mission statement if you want to be considered a legitimate =
college=20
or university by, among others, accrediting agencies and board =
members.=20

This theoretical proposition assumes that there are some =
processes and=20
structures that organizations must incorporate because they are=20
normatively prescribed. This is one of the primary points of =
institutional=20
theory, which argues that an organization such as a university =
succeeds=20
when everyone inside and outside the organization agrees that it =
is a=20
university (Meyer & Scott, 1980; Meyer & Rowan, 1977)! =
According=20
to this theory, colleges and universities would be wise to develop =
mission=20
statements so that those within the organization (students, =
faculty) and=20
outside (accreditors, Regents, prospective students) see that such =
a=20
statement exists, in proper form and verbiage. Moreover, the =
mission=20
statement developed should incorporate the elements commonly =
understood to=20
form the basis for a higher education mission (e.g., search for =
knowledge,=20
teaching, service to the community). [End Page 458]

Circumstantial evidence supporting this hypothesis is not hard =
to find.=20
College and university mission statements are steeped in symbolism =
and=20
many of their pronouncements cannot be objectively measured. For =
example,=20
Chait (1979) examined dozens of mission statements and concluded =
that they=20
all looked the same in part because of a tendency to include =
"vague and=20
vapid goals." The advantage in including this kind of verbiage in =
mission=20
statements is that it is impossible to prove that the institution =
is=20
failing to progress towards its goals. Further, they are difficult =
to=20
contest. After all, Chait asked, "Who cannot rally around 'the =
pursuit of=20
excellence' or 'the discovery and transmission of knowledge?'" (p. =
36).=20
Similarly, mission statements provide an opportunity for schools =
to lay=20
claim to important terrain. For example, Delucchi (1997) found =
that the=20
mission statements of schools dominated by enrollment in =
professional=20
fields extolled their institutions' "liberal arts focus." Although =
institutional theorists would concede that mission statements may =
inform=20
some universities' strategic plans, they would argue that the =
primary=20
purpose is to serve normative rather than utilitarian =
purposes.1

Our study

Whether mission statements are a) strategic =
expressions=20
of institutional distinctiveness; or b) organizational window =
dressings=20
that are normative necessities is, we believe, an important =
question that=20
can be answered only with empirical data. Our research study is a =
first=20
step on the road to answering this larger question. Our study =
examines=20
hundreds of mission statements in an attempt to identify patterns =
of=20
difference within these statements. Our goal is analyze these =
patterns and=20
to make judgments regarding whether these patterns are consistent =
with a)=20
recognized differences among institutional types (e.g., Carnegie=20
classifications, control, etc.); or b) the aforementioned =
institutional=20
explanations about why mission statements are so ever-present =
within=20
higher education.

The findings of this study have immensely practical =
implications.=20
First, those charged with constructing or refining mission =
statements will=20
benefit from a greater understanding of the purpose of these =
documents. We=20
believe that there is genuine disagreement among many in higher =
education=20
currently regarding the appropriate use and purpose of mission =
statements.=20
Irrespective of which camp is correct, given the amount of time =
and=20
resources colleges and universities spend in planning and =
constructing=20
mission statements for audiences like accreditors and prospective=20
students, mission statements are important documents. [End Page =
459] If it can be shown that mission statements reflect the=20
institutional diversity of American higher education then the =
proponents=20
of mission statements may be right=E2=80=94mission statements may =
be a way of=20
establishing institutional uniqueness and therefore are a =
potentially=20
useful tool in institutional decision-making. If, however, the =
same=20
analysis reveals that these formal documents do not speak to =
recognized=20
institutional differences, it would seem more likely that mission=20
statements exist for other (either aspirational or normative) =
purposes. In=20
either case, empirical analysis is likely to produce results =
useful for=20
those inside and outside higher education. From a practical =
perspective, a=20
better understanding of the use(s) of these documents would allow =
those=20
involved in their construction to decide what information to =
include or=20
not include and what kinds of organizational actors should be =
involved in=20
the construction process.

Study Methods and Rationale=20

Though mission statements are ubiquitous in =
higher=20
education, there is precious little empirical research on the =
content of=20
these statements. One well-known empirical study of 114 mission =
statements=20
conducted over a decade ago merely concluded that these statements =
were=20
"amazingly vague, vapid, evasive, or rhetorical, lacking =
specificity or=20
clear purpose=E2=80=A6full of honorable verbiage signifying =
nothing" (Newsom and=20
Hayes, 1991, p. 29). No researcher has sought to determine whether =
college=20
and university mission statements are, in fact, accurate =
depictions of=20
organizational reality or whether the differences among mission =
statements=20
are the products of recognized differences or aspirations. Our =
goal, then,=20
is to construct a more systematic and comprehensive exploration of =
mission=20
statements in an attempt to contribute to the beginnings of an =
empirical=20
literature on mission statements in higher education.

We randomly selected more than 300 mission statements from a=20
representative sample of U.S. four-year colleges and universities. =
Each=20
statement was obtained via the World Wide Web and printed for =
analysis.=20
The goal of the study was to determine whether the mission =
statements in=20
this representative group of institutions were as varied as the=20
institutions themselves. The research question guiding this study =
was:=20

How do college and university mission statements differ =
in=20
content, and are any differences reflective of recognized =
differences=20
between institutional types?

After the institutions were randomly chosen from a list of =
1,106=20
four-year institutions listed in the 2000 Carnegie Classification=20
list,2 each college [End Page 460] and =
university=20
mission statement was identified and printed out by a graduate=20
student.3 The study's co-authors initially divided =
the=20
statements into two groups and coded them separately. In an effort =
to=20
ensure reliability, the co-authors discussed and renamed the =
elements=20
identified in the mission statements and separately coded several =
of the=20
same institutional mission statements. In the latter case, an =
examination=20
of the separately coded mission statements showed that each of the =
authors=20
coded the sample mission statements similarly. We coded each =
mission=20
statement in its entirety. In the end, we identified 118 distinct =
elements=20
that appeared in the mission statements. Beyond our analysis of =
each=20
entire mission statement, we also gave unique codes to those =
elements=20
appearing in the first 2=E2=80=933 sentences of each mission. We =
paid special=20
attention to these elements because of our assumption that this =
placement=20
at the "top" of the mission statement reflected an organizational =
emphasis=20
on these particular elements.

Using the World Wide Web had at least two advantages. First, =
because=20
the data were available electronically, it could be analyzed and=20
categorized more easily. Second, this method allowed us to quickly =
and=20
easily gather a representative sample of colleges and =
universities. We=20
selected institutions across the range of four-year Carnegie=20
classifications and collected statements from both publics and =
privates=20
within each group. We used document analysis techniques to =
identify=20
elements that were embedded in these mission statements (Merriam, =
1998).=20
We use the term "element" rather than the more often used "theme," =
because=20
we want to convey two things. First, our analysis of these mission =
statements sometimes focused on significant single words, as well =
as=20
phrases. Second, our goal in this analysis was to identify the =
integral=20
pieces of each mission statement in such a way so that, if =
necessary, each=20
statement could be reconstructed using only the pieces (or =
"elements")=20
that we identified. An apt analogy would be a jigsaw puzzle where =
the=20
pieces of the puzzle are of different shapes and sizes and these =
specific=20
pieces (or elements) are required to reconstruct the puzzle. This =
analysis=20
of mission statements by Carnegie Classification ultimately =
allowed a=20
determination of whether these institutions are similar or =
dissimilar in=20
the type of students they serve, the kinds of degree programs they =
offer,=20
or their historical mission. The method is similar to one employed =
in a=20
smaller study of liberal arts college mission statements =
(Delucchi, 1997).=20

While we had no a priori standards in place that would =
help us=20
designate when a particular argument concerning the usefulness of =
mission=20
statements was carried, we did discuss what we might find and how =
those=20
findings might be related to the conceptual and empirical =
literature on=20
mission statements prior to our analysis of these documents. In =
short, we=20
arrived at following quasi-hypotheses. [End Page 461]

Consistent use of elements by institutional control (public =
or=20
private) would indicate that mission statements are used to =
communicate=20
with different constituent groups.=20

Frequent use of normative or aspirational elements would be =
evidence=20
that mission statements are used as legitimating tools. =

Finally, to arrive at a more valid analysis of =
the=20
mission statements, we conducted our analysis using only those =
documents=20
formally labeled as "mission statements." This reduced our larger =
sample=20
of institutional documents to 299.

Findings

Our analysis of mission statement elements =
revealed=20
several findings worthy of discussion. These are identified below =
in brief=20
with a lengthy discussion appearing later.

Institutional control (public vs. private) is more important =
in=20
predicting mission statement elements than is Carnegie =
Classification.=20

A few elements (e.g. the notion that the institution is =
committed to=20
diversity or to providing a liberal arts education) appear =
frequently=20
across institutional types and control groups.=20

There is a prevalence of elements related specifically to =
"service"=20
either by the institution or through the inculcation of civic =
values in=20
students, although the definition of "service" differs somewhat =
between=20
public and private institutions.

As a premise to our discussion of common elements, it is =
important to=20
note that there was, among the mission statements we reviewed, a=20
surprising variety. As stated earlier, we ultimately identified =
118=20
distinct elements across all statements. Some institutions used =
very few=20
elements and some used many. No two institutions had precisely the =
same=20
configuration of elements. Nevertheless, an examination of the =
most common=20
elements by institutional control and by Carnegie Classification =
(Tables=20
1=E2=80=935)=20
reveals some intriguing patterns. [End Page 462] =

To begin our analysis, we identified the three most frequently =
cited=20
elements within each Carnegie Classification.4 The potential existed for us to identify =
up to 18=20
frequently used elements (that is, if the three top elements for =
each of=20
the six Carnegie classifications had all been different). Instead, =
we=20
found some striking commonalities across the groups. Among public=20
baccalaureate colleges, master's universities and doctoral =
universities,=20
we found only eight common elements. The notion of serving the =
local area=20
is an element common to five of the six classifications and is the =
top=20
element for public Baccalaureate institutions (general and liberal =
arts)=20
and Master's I institutions. "Commitment to diversity" is also an =
oft-used=20
element and is found across 4 of the 6 public institutional types. =

The prevalence of certain elements is also striking among =
private=20
colleges and universities with 10 shared elements among a possible =
19.=20
(Note: Because of a tie score, private, Baccalaureate-General =
institutions=20
have four elements instead of three.) Like their public =
counterparts,=20
private institutions had elements that were common across Carnegie =
Classifications. "Liberal arts," for example, appears for four of =
the six=20
institutional types, as did an affiliation (historical or current) =
with a=20
religious denomination.

These three tables also illustrate the relative popularity of =
the=20
liberal arts, diversity, and service elements across both =
institutional=20
type and control group. For example, if viewed by the six Carnegie =
Classifications and by institutional control, there are 12 =
distinct groups=20
of colleges and universities. The diversity element appears in 5 =
of 12=20
groups; the liberal arts element in seven; and the civic =
duty/service=20
(student level) or serves local area (institutional level) element =
appears=20
in eight.

As was noted in the methods section, our analysis also =
identified those=20
elements that appeared in the first 2=E2=80=933 sentences. We =
reasoned that these=20
elements had greater institutional emphasis. Here again we found=20
commonalities. For example, Tables 4=20
and 5=20
below indicate that both public and private universities call =
attention to=20
the importance of instilling civic duty in their students, as well =
as the=20
importance of a broad, liberal arts education. However, the =
elements that=20
public and private institutions choose to emphasize differ =
significantly.=20
Public universities heavily emphasize service=E2=80=94both as =
institutions within=20
a region and through instilling in students a sense of civic duty. =
Several=20
other emphasized elements are largely descriptive in nature and =
rather=20
pedestrian=E2=80=94"we're a public institution and we have =
undergraduate and=20
graduate programs." Private universities, by contrast, focus more =
on the=20
formative aspects of education=E2=80=94promoting "student =
development" and helping=20
prepare students for the "real world" through programs that are=20
academically rigorous. [End Page 464]

A textual analysis of the various ways that elements are =
articulated=20
suggests some interesting disparities between public and private=20
institutions. An example is the language around "civic duty" and=20
"service." There is a clear tendency for public institutions to =
describe=20
this work as preparing "citizens" or "promoting civic engagement." =
The=20
implication is clearly that graduates will stay in-state, vote, =
and pay=20
taxes or that the institution contributes in other ways to the =
local or=20
state economy. The rhetoric around service for private =
institutions was=20
substantially different. Below are excerpts from the mission =
statements of=20
three private colleges whose goals are to encourage students to =

"=E2=80=A6engage in the intellectual and social challenges =
of their times."=20

"Fulfill the edict of Horace Mann who said: 'be ashamed to =
die until=20
you have won some victory for humanity.'" [End Page 465]=20

"=E2=80=A6 enable men and women of diverse backgrounds to =
engage and=20
transform the world."

Obviously there is a substantial difference in =
promoting=20
"civic duty" and preparing students to "transform the world!" We =
might=20
briefly note the desire of the public group to link their work to =
serving=20
the state (a principal patron) and of the latter to cast =
themselves as an=20
elite training ground for the next generation of leaders (a theme =
we will=20
return to later); however, our purpose here is simply to observe =
that the=20
disparate emphases in a particular element. Suffice it to say that =
what=20
"service" means in one context is clearly not what "service" means =
in=20
another.

Discussion

Taken together, what do these findings tell us =
about the=20
utility of mission statements? Do they support the claim that =
mission=20
statements provide focus and direction to institutions? Or, do =
they bear=20
out the arguments of those who criticize mission statements for =
their=20
formless generalities? Finally, do the data suggest that mission=20
statements are primarily normative documents, designed to provide =
internal=20
and external audiences with evidence of legitimacy? We do not =
propose to=20
be able to fully answer these questions with this study. But, our=20
exploration of the differences in mission statement rhetoric =
across=20
institutional type is a necessary first step in any attempt to get =
at the=20
value and utility of mission statements and suggests several =
hypotheses.=20

Signaling Constituents and =
Reflecting=20
Distinctive Values

First, as discussed earlier, there are =
discernable=20
patterns of the elements in mission statements by institutional =
control.=20
The discussion of tables one through three (above) vividly =
illustrates=20
this point. Public colleges and universities construct their =
mission=20
statements with combinations of elements more similar to one =
another than=20
to their private peers of similar focus and institutional type. =
This=20
finding invites several interpretations. First, given these =
patterns, one=20
might find support for the arguments of the institutional =
theorists, who=20
view mission statements as symbolic artifacts. From this =
perspective, the=20
use of like elements (e.g. civic duty/service or a commitment to=20
diversity) by unlike =E2=80=93 but similarly funded =E2=80=93 =
institutions leads to the=20
conclusions that mission statements are not used to provide =
direction or=20
vision, but rather as icons to signal key external constituencies =
that the=20
institution in question shares these groups' values and goals. Or, =
more=20
simply, public colleges include [End Page 466] mention of =
public=20
service because, to ignore this element, might call into question =
their=20
very "publicness."

Alternately, this first finding of common elements by =
institutional=20
control may reflect substantial differences that are not captured =
by=20
Carnegie Classification. From this viewpoint, the finding that =
public=20
colleges' and universities' mission statements contain elements =
different=20
from those of their private brethren is explained by a flipping of =
the=20
cause and effect relationship that we (and others) assume. That =
is, these=20
mission statements may reflect, rather than drive, the realities =
of these=20
institutions' environments. These environments include the desires =
of=20
their students and alumni (and taxpayers). As a result, it should =
come as=20
no surprise that the mission statements of colleges attended and =
supported=20
by persons who support progressive notions of multiculturalism and =
diversity include elements that speak to these values. =
Concurrently, the=20
fact that public universities' mission statements speak to the =
service=20
that these institutions provide is a reflection of their =
environmental=20
reality and, perhaps, their unwillingness to associate themselves =
with=20
more progressive ideas that may or may not find support in state =
capitols.=20
In short, institutions include in their mission what their =
benefactors=20
value. It is, then, these differences in values =E2=80=93 rather =
than=20
Carnegie-like differences in degrees conferred =E2=80=93 that are =
the=20
self-defining characteristics for postsecondary institutions.

However, one can discern amidst the rhetorical flourishes a =
mindfulness=20
of multiple external audiences and their associated =
desires/biases. For=20
example, we observed that statements about offering a liberal arts =
education are in many instances immediately followed by phrases =
such as=20
"=E2=80=A6and professional training." The message? Our education =
is formative=20
and useful. (Something both prospective students and =
hard-nosed=20
state legislators would appreciate.) Many Master's institutions =
described=20
their desire to provide students with greater analytic abilities, =
better=20
communication skills, and to help them develop an appreciation for =
learning, and yet they never used the term "liberal arts." This =
cannot be=20
accidental. Either the authors actively avoided the term "liberal" =
for=20
fear its implication would be misconstrued or there was a concern =
that the=20
institution might be mistaken for a liberal arts college rather =
than a=20
comprehensive university. The point is that if institutions are =
using=20
these statement to legitimate themselves, they are doing far more =
than=20
creating a symbolic document that they can point to=E2=80=94they =
are using these=20
statements in an effort to communicate particular messages, likely =
to=20
specific and multiple audiences.

There is also variability in how particular elements (the =
example used=20
in the findings section was "civic duty/service") are construed. =
Critics=20
[End Page 467] have argued that mission statements use =
phrases that=20
are interchangeable. Though much of the language is superficially =
similar=20
(that is, the mission statements share certain elements) it is =
also the=20
case that some institutions take great care to explicate these =
elements=20
and they do so in decidedly different ways. Often this results in =
these=20
elements having decidedly different "flavors" at different =
institutions.=20
It also should be noted that though some language may appear =
generic to an=20
outsider, it may well be charged with meaning within a particular =
academic=20
community (Hartley, 2002). The mission statements of an urban HBCU =
that=20
draws a majority of its students regionally and boasts an =
Afro-Centric=20
curriculum and an innovative partnership with a public housing =
project=20
next door and a highly-selective private university that draws its =
students nationally and has a well-recognized service-learning =
program may=20
both indicate a desire to instill in their students a sense of =
"public=20
service," but what is meant by "service" within those two academic =
communities may be sharply divergent.

Taken together, our findings do not disconfirm the =
institutional=20
theorists. However, they do suggest that the signaling is more =
complex=20
than current theory suggests. The distinctive elements emphasized =
by=20
public and private universities suggest that their use of mission=20
statements speak to the distinct challenges faced by public and =
private=20
colleges and universities. Each occupies different referential =
worlds.=20
Public institutions are cognizant of their need to show their =
relevance to=20
important external constituent groups, including taxpayers and=20
legislators, as they compete for public funding with groups whose =
service=20
to the local region is much more conspicuous. Prisons and social =
service=20
agencies, for example, compete for funding at the state level with =
colleges and universities and do not share the burden of proving =
their=20
relevance to the state. Unlike these other agencies, it is often =
easy for=20
citizens who are not attending college or do not have dependents =
enrolled=20
at public universities to forget or lose sight of the economic =
development=20
or social service role that public higher education institutions =
play.=20
Mission statements, it would seem, have important legitimizing =
roles, both=20
normatively and politically.

What Wasn't Evident: Aspiration =

The statements we analyzed, in general, did =
not=20
aggrandize their institutions. We had expected to see greater =
usage of=20
elements whose purpose was to convey prestige or status on the =
college or=20
university in question. Instead, aspirational elements (e.g.=20
pronouncements about being or becoming the "best") were =
comparatively=20
rare. Therefore, it would seem that arguments that such statements =
are=20
primarily intended for legitimating purposes are overblown. =
[End Page=20
468]

We did identify certain aspirational elements among the 118 =
coded. Some=20
mission statements, for example, extolled the specific =
institution's=20
ranking within the last US News report. Others spoke of=20
prizewinning faculty members. Such elements are particularly easy =
to spot=20
and label as purely aspirational. However, they are not =
operationally=20
substantive. They provide no direction for strategic planning nor =
do they=20
help an institution focus its mission or decide which programs to =
add or=20
terminate. Instead, they are symbols used to bolster the status of =
the=20
institution in question. However, when aggregated, the mission =
statements=20
displayed relatively few of these elements. This is important, =
because=20
critics of mission statements would have predicted that our =
analysis would=20
reveal the popularity of such elements.

This lack of evident aspiration in the mission statements was=20
surprising, but may be related to our earlier discussion of the =
ways=20
regarding the utility with which these institutions fashioned =
their=20
mission statements. In total, these findings suggest that mission=20
statements may legitimately be viewed as statements for =
communication with=20
external audiences that have specific expectations of colleges and =
universities. That is, colleges and universities may be using =
mission=20
statements not for planning or cultural purposes, but as means of =
telling=20
important stakeholders outside the institution that "we understand =
what=20
you want and we're going to deliver it to you." This would be =
consistent=20
with a lack of aspirational language that these kinds of audiences =
would=20
either eschew as inappropriate (and inconsistent with the =
realities of the=20
institution) or unimportant. From this perspective, such use of =
mission=20
statements represents a maturation on the part of colleges and=20
universities who are getting better at recognizing their patrons =
and=20
prospective consumers and focusing their attention on what these =
folks=20
want.

Finally, our study of the elements that make up college and =
university=20
mission statements suggests that our thinking may need to be =
updated.=20
Simple assumptions about mission statements (e.g., they are =
meaningless,=20
self-aggrandizing documents; they are essential to the planning =
process,=20
etc.) may need to be rethought. While there is evidence that =
mission=20
statements are used to signal and symbolize, it seems more likely =
that the=20
subject of college and university mission statements is more =
complex and=20
that institutions are using these documents to communicate their =
utility=20
and willingness to serve in terms that are both normative and =
politically=20
apt.

Future Research

Although this initial analysis reveals some =
intriguing=20
patterns, it may also be useful to examine the data using other =
criteria=20
than Carnegie [End Page 469] classification and control. =
For=20
example, common elements may be revealed among institutions such =
as urban=20
colleges and universities, women's colleges, HBCUs, or Catholic=20
institutions. There may be important regional differences. It may =
even be=20
possible to identify institutions that have substantially similar =
clusters=20
of elements. Revealing such commonalities of purpose could =
potentially=20
provide an alternative means of categorizing institutions along =
the=20
dimension of institutional ideology. However, thus far we have =
examined=20
only the surface level of institutional purpose. We do not know to =
what=20
degree various elements in the statements are expressed =
programmatically=20
or operationally. Our analysis provides only an overview of how =
various=20
institutions are representing themselves. We cannot extrapolate =
behaviors=20
from espoused values. Of course, there are credible reasons to =
believe=20
that institutions are not engaged in wholesale deception. To the =
extent=20
that such statements are viewed by multiple =
constituencies=E2=80=94internal and=20
external=E2=80=94those drafting statements of purpose would be =
unlikely to submit=20
elements that others find patently offensive. Targeted site visits =
may be=20
the best means of confirming to what degree these statements are =
congruent=20
with institutional behavior and exploring the disparate ways that =
academic=20
communities define key values.

Christopher C. Morphew is Associate =
Professor at the=20
Institute of Higher Education at the University of Georgia. =

Matthew Hartley is Assistant Professor =
at the=20
Graduate School of Education at the University of Pennsylvania. =

Endnotes

1. More importantly, they would argue that those =
strategic=20
plans are more important for their symbolic and normative purposes =
than=20
for any structural utility.

3. In some cases, "vision statements" or other =
such=20
documents were the only documents found on the institution's =
website.=20
These were not used for this study.

4. Our initial decision to list the three most =
frequently=20
cited elements was somewhat arbitrary, though subsequent analysis =
revealed=20
that the frequency of elements cited decreased rather =
precipitously after=20
the top three.